Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 5/2015

01-05-2015

Validation of the Care-Related Quality of Life Instrument in different study settings: findings from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS)

Auteurs: J. E. Lutomski, N. J. A. van Exel, G. I. J. M. Kempen, E. P. Moll van Charante, W. P. J. den Elzen, A. P. D. Jansen, P. F. M. Krabbe, B. Steunenberg, E. W. Steyerberg, M. G. M. Olde Rikkert, R. J. F. Melis

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Validity is a contextual aspect of a scale which may differ across sample populations and study protocols. The objective of our study was to validate the Care-Related Quality of Life Instrument (CarerQol) across two different study design features, sampling framework (general population vs. different care settings) and survey mode (interview vs. written questionnaire).

Methods

Data were extracted from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS, www.​topics-mds.​eu), a pooled public-access data set with information on >3,000 informal caregivers throughout the Netherlands. Meta-correlations and linear mixed models between the CarerQol’s seven dimensions (CarerQol-7D) and caregiver’s level of happiness (CarerQol-VAS) and self-rated burden (SRB) were performed.

Results

The CarerQol-7D dimensions were correlated to the CarerQol-VAS and SRB in the pooled data set and the subgroups. The strength of correlations between CarerQol-7D dimensions and SRB was weaker among caregivers who were interviewed versus those who completed a written questionnaire. The directionality of associations between the CarerQol-VAS, SRB and the CarerQol-7D dimensions in the multivariate model supported the construct validity of the CarerQol in the pooled population. Significant interaction terms were observed in several dimensions of the CarerQol-7D across sampling frame and survey mode, suggesting meaningful differences in reporting levels.

Conclusions

Although good scientific practice emphasises the importance of re-evaluating instrument properties in individual research studies, our findings support the validity and applicability of the CarerQol instrument in a variety of settings. Due to minor differential reporting, pooling CarerQol data collected using mixed administration modes should be interpreted with caution; for TOPICS-MDS, meta-analytic techniques may be warranted.
vorige artikel Cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of Pain Catastrophizing Scale among young healthy Malay-speaking adults in military settings
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
2.
Agree, E. M., & Glaser, K. (2009). Demography of informal caregiving. In P. Uhlenberg (Ed.), International handbook of population aging (pp. 647–668). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRef
3.
Ward, B. W., & Schiller, J. S. (2013). Prevalence of multiple chronic conditions among US adults: Estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10, E65.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
4.
Caughey, G. E., Vitry, A. I., Gilbert, A. L., & Roughead, E. E. (2008). Prevalence of comorbidity of chronic diseases in Australia. BMC Public Health, 8, 221.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
5.
Uijen, A. A., & van de Lisdonk, E. H. (2008). Multimorbidity in primary care: Prevalence and trend over the last 20 years. European Journal of General Practice, 14(Suppl 1), 28–32.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bevans, M., & Sternberg, E. M. (2012). Caregiving burden, stress, and health effects among family caregivers of adult cancer patients. JAMA, 307(4), 398–403.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
7.
Schulz, R., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The Caregiver Health Effects Study. JAMA, 282(23), 2215–2219.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Joling, K. J., van Hout, H. P., Schellevis, F. G., van der Horst, H. E., Scheltens, P., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). Incidence of depression and anxiety in the spouses of patients with dementia: A naturalistic cohort study of recorded morbidity with a 6-year follow-up. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18(2), 146–153.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bobinac, A., van Exel, N. J., Rutten, F. F., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). Health effects in significant others: Separating family and care-giving effects. Medical Decision Making, 31(2), 292–298.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Mestheneos, E., & Triantafillou, J. (Eds.). (2005). Supporting family carers of older people in Europe: The Pan-European background report. Empirical evidence, policy trends and future perspectives. Hamburg: Lit Verlag.
11.
Lutomski, J. E., Baars, M. A., Schalk, B. W., Boter, H., Buurman, B. M., den Elzen, W. P., et al. (2013). The development of the older persons and informal caregivers survey minimum dataset (TOPICS-MDS): A large-scale data sharing initiative. PLoS ONE, 8(12), e81673.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
12.
Martin, P., & Lynn, P. (2011). The effects of mixed mode survey designs on simple and complex analyses. Centre for comparative social surveys working paper series: Paper no. 04: Centre for comparative social surveys, City University London.
13.
Hood, K., Robling, M., Ingledew, D., Gillespie, D., Greene, G., Ivins, R., et al. (2012). Mode of data elicitation, acquisition and response to surveys: A systematic review. Health Technology Assessment, 16(27), 1–162.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189.CrossRef
15.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2008). Health measure scales: A pratical guide to their development and use (4th ed., pp. 167–210). Oxford University Press: New York.; 247–276.CrossRef
16.
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J., Foets, M., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). Sustained informal care: The feasibility, construct validity and test–retest reliability of the CarerQol-instrument to measure the impact of informal care in long-term care. Aging & Mental Health, 15(8), 1018–1027.CrossRef
17.
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, N. J., Looren de Jong, S., Redekop, W. K., & Brouwer, W. B. (2011). A new test of the construct validity of the CarerQol instrument: Measuring the impact of informal care giving. Quality of Life Research, 20(6), 875–887.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
18.
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van Gorp, B., & Redekop, W. K. (2006). The CarerQol instrument: A new instrument to measure care-related quality of life of informal caregivers for use in economic evaluations. Quality of Life Research, 15(6), 1005–1021.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, J., Rose, J. M., van de Wetering, E. J., & Brouwer, W. B. (2014). A discrete choice experiment to obtain a tariff for valuing informal care situations measured with the CarerQol instrument. Medical Decision Making, 34(1), 84–96.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Hoefman, R. J., van Exel, J., & Brouwer, W. (2013). How to include informal care in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics, 31(12), 1105–1119.CrossRefPubMed
21.
van Exel, N. J., Scholte op Reimer, W. J., Brouwer, W. B., van den Berg, B., Koopmanschap, M. A., & van den Bos, G. A. (2004). Instruments for assessing the burden of informal caregiving for stroke patients in clinical practice: A comparison of CSI, CRA, SCQ and self-rated burden. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(2), 203–214.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Brouwer, W. B., van Exel, N. J., van den Berg, B., van den Bos, G. A., & Koopmanschap, M. A. (2005). Process utility from providing informal care: The benefit of caring. Health Policy, 74(1), 85–99.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Searle, S. D., Mitnitski, A., Gahbauer, E. A., Gill, T. M., & Rockwood, K. (2008). A standard procedure for creating a frailty index. BMC Geriatrics, 8, 24.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
24.
Lutomski, J. E., Baars, M. A., van Kempen, J. A., Buurman, B. M., den Elzen, W. P., Jansen, A. P., et al. (2013). Validation of a frailty index from the older persons and informal caregivers survey minimum data set. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 61(9), 1625–1627.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 737–745.CrossRefPubMed
27.
28.
29.
Singer, J. D. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23(4), 323–355.CrossRef
30.
De Leeuw, E. D. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of Official Statistics, 21, 233–255.
31.
van Praag, B. M. S., Frijters, P., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2003). The anatomy of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 51, 29–49.CrossRef
32.
Bobinac, A., van Exel, N. J. A., Rutten, F. F. H., & Brouwer, W. B. F. (2010). Caring for and caring about: Disentangling the caregiver effect and the family effect. Journal of Health Economics, 29, 549–556.CrossRefPubMed
33.
van den Berg, B., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2007). Monetary valuation of informal care: The well-being valuation method. Health Economics, 16, 1227–1244.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, b2535.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
36.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (eds) (2009). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009. www.​cochrane-handbook.​org.
37.
Riley, R. D., Lambert, P. C., & Abo-Zaid, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of individual participant data: Rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ, 340, c221.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Boulton, G., Rawlins, M., Vallance, P., & Walport, M. (2011). Science as a public enterprise: The case for open data. Lancet, 377(9778), 1633–1635.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Riley, R. D. (2010). Commentary: Like it and lump it? Meta-analysis using individual participant data. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(5), 1359–1361.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Ahmed, I., Sutton, A. J., & Riley, R. D. (2012). Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: A database survey. BMJ, 344, d7762.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Validation of the Care-Related Quality of Life Instrument in different study settings: findings from The Older Persons and Informal Caregivers Survey Minimum DataSet (TOPICS-MDS)
Auteurs
J. E. Lutomski
N. J. A. van Exel
G. I. J. M. Kempen
E. P. Moll van Charante
W. P. J. den Elzen
A. P. D. Jansen
P. F. M. Krabbe
B. Steunenberg
E. W. Steyerberg
M. G. M. Olde Rikkert
R. J. F. Melis
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0841-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2015

Quality of Life Research 5/2015 Naar de uitgave

Review

Genetic variations underlying self-reported physical functioning: a review

Patient Engagement Special Section

Building new roles and relationships in research: a model of patient engagement research

Patient Engagement Special Section

Low-income minority patient engagement with automated telephonic depression assessment and impact on health outcomes

Patient Engagement Special Section

Gaps between patients’ reported current and preferred abilities versus clinicians’ emphases during an episode of care: Any agreement?

Patient Engagement Special Section

Beyond lip service and box ticking: how effective patient engagement is integral to the development and delivery of patient-reported outcomes

Patient Engagement Special Section

Embedding the perceptions of people with dementia into quantitative research design